War Debate: An Extraordinary Moment in U.S. History
The ongoing debate in the House of Representatives on a Democratic-sponsored resolution to cap U.S. troop levels in Iraq is an extraordinary moment in U.S. history.
First and foremost, it is the first real debate on a four-year-old war that has riven the U.S., diminished its standing in the world community and ended the Republican hegemony in Washington. The debate, which will conclude with a vote toward the end of the week, also is a slap in the face of the Senate, which last week fiddled away its obligation to act on a resolution in that chamber.
The non-binding resolution is short and to the point:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
I am posting excerpts from the debate at Kiko’s House. Please click here to read them.
More on the debate here.
And an interesting story here on how some Republicans are trying to avoid the debate.
13 Responses to “War Debate: An Extraordinary Moment in U.S. History”
I’m not sure I’d blame the Senate too much for the impasse. Not only is the Democratic majority extremely thin, but the Senate rules encourage debate and a slower, more consensus-based approach than the House.
And I’m not sure if I’d include a photo of a casket along with the name of the deceased in a political discussion…unless you know that the deceased would agree with you on that particular issue and wouldn’t object to the picture being used. Otherwise you might be dragging them into something they don’t agree with and can’t object to (being dead).
Alan G:
You make two good points.
I disagree with the first. While you are correct in describing the Senate’s parliamentary parameters, this is no time for business as usual.
I agree with the second and have removed the name of the Marine from the caption.
It’s good to finally see our elected representatives taking this issue on, even if it’s only for a non-binding resolution.
With that said, I can’t believe Republicans are still trotting out some of these arguments
And I think Boehner said something along the lines of “if we leave Iraq, they will follow us home.”
Does any moderate or thinking person actually fall for these tactics anymore?
Guess what Dreier, supporting our troops means giving them our respect, and how do you claim to respect our troops if you don’t give them tools, traning and objectives that will lead to success and safety?
And Boehner, why would Shiite Militias and Sunni insurgents follow us home? They are mostly fighting each other and when they do attack us, they do it because we are an incompetent occupying power that has pissed off most of the population. There is hardly any security or utilities. Unemployment is high and we’ve even been caught torturing innocent Iraqis.
The bulk of the insurgency is not the Al-Qaeda types, and the Al-Qaeda types that are there are there because of us.
The DEMS Iraq Plan – Do You Have A Better One?…
In the end, the Dems have given us a world without Islamic terrorists and fossil fuels. Global warming will be stopped and we will live happily ever after.
……
I’d say the Dems push for this resolution ranks up there as one of the all time great ‘stupid and futile gestures’. Other than giving thrills to you and your fellow anti-war types, what does it accomplish? Does Bush individually, the troops in Iraq, we as a country, or our friends and enemies across the world need the debate/resolution to know that pretty much all the Dems and some of the GOP in Congress are opposed to the surge, if not to being in Iraq at all?
And if/when it passes, what are you going to do with your resolution? Frame it? Pass out copies at anti-war rallies? You’ve got to know that Bush is determined to ignore you and is going to go ahead and do what he wants so long as he is in office.
So what’s the point? Other than making yourselves feel good and morally superior, which you certainly don’t need a non-binding resolution for, just why are the Dems using up so much time on something that matters not in the least?
And, yes, for the same reasons, it is ridiculous that the GOP is bothering to even debate this. Let the Dems have their vote. The troops will know, as will the country, that it all for show and means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
If congressmen truly believe the Iraq is wrong, they should debate the funding of the war. The only benefit of a non-binding resolution is to the congressmen themselves – they get to go back to their districts and say they opposed the president. By continuing to fund the war, they are, in essence, approving the president’s actions (failure to act is still an act), and we have all seen what this president does when he gets outside advice – he ignores it.
Comments #4 and #5 – Nice talking points, worked so well in November. How can you eat your
Freedomfries or toast?In response to Steve and Pat,
The Democrats are playing the political game right now, and people that support the Dems have to play it too.
The Dem politicians are asking: Will cutting funding for the war hurt them in the upcoming elections? Is that risk greater than the risk of staying in Iraq a little longer?
The Dem voters have to ask: Should we continue to support these people even if they won’t cut funding for the war? Is an extension of the war worse than having Republicans in control of Congress in 2008 and beyond?
Most Republicans are playing the same game, with opposing rhetoric of course. It’s just too bad our troops, the Iraqi people, global security and our tax dollars hang in the balance.
stevesturm:
Rudi’s coup de’grace was spot on, but I would add that you seem to have a remarkably ho-hum attitude about the most pressing issue in the U.S. today, one that an increasing number of your fellow Republicans also see as something that demands action.
Shaun: that’s my point, this isn’t ‘action’. It’s a game, a jockeying for support from each fringe, a meaningless gesture. And I’m not ho hum, I not only don’t want more troops going, I want the ones who are there to come home.. but I recognize that nothing, I repeat, nothing, is going to make that happen so long as Bush is President.
Rudi: forgive me, I’m slow. Please explain your coup de’grace to me, perhaps s p e l l i n g i t o u t f o r m e ?
Shaun,
It was Walter Jones personally going to soldiers funerals and meeting with the families that changed his stance. From Freedom Fries to a rabid critic of the war. Yet, his stance is ignored by the MSM. W does’t hung a family and comfort of dead soldiers, WJ does and represents a district with a large military base. SS – Google Walter Jones and Freedom Fries, Shaun just claimed the coup de’grace I give you the info.
Rudi: I followed the Jones/fries connection, but still don’t get how it applies to me. I never was in favor of doing what Bush is trying to do. I wanted us to go in, get rid of Hussein and whatever WMDs might have existed and get out and leave it to the Iraqis to figure things out for themselves. As for your ‘worked well in november’, there are many reasons one can ascribe to the GOP losing control, Iraq being just one of them.
OK But Jones was one of a few Republicans that wanted a debate on Iraq. The leadership shot that down. They did vote on a ‘Victory in Iraq’ parade. Anybody hear the date of the PARADE.